Lorors Scoot oF TuroLooy A.N. DacanAy, SJ. T Nov 2013 His Excellency ‘Most Rev. ANTHONY SABLAN APURONG, 0.F.M. Cap., D.D. Archbishop of Agana 196 B Cuesta San Ramon Agana, Guam 09610 (6) 472-6116 ‘Your Excellency: Enclosed herewith is the appeal of Rev. Paul Gofigan in rclation to his removal as Pastor of Santa Barbara Parish, prepared by the undersigned advocate of the same Fr. Gofigan, Sincerely yours, A.N. DACANAY, SJ. Mrrnoroutan ‘Taunt of Manta Tans 426-090" Pax 426.5067 ‘Taig san009 7 SanoLovous Scuoot oF Tuzowoer A.N. Dacanay, SJ. Response to the investigation for the puspose of removing Rev. Fr. PAUL GOFIGAN from his office as pastor in accord with the provisions of Ce.1740-1747. 1. A chtonology of events. 0016 July 2013, the archbishop weotea eter to Fr. Giga asking itm co submic fis resignation fom the office of pastor of Santa Barbara Church. This letter was handed to Fr. Gofigan ata meeting with the Archbishop. ‘On the same day that he was asked to tender his resignation, Fr. Gofigan discovered that (a) he wae locked out of the parish offices, (0) the locks were changed, (©) « ‘clinistator was appointed and (@) he was taken out of the schedule of presidrs atthe parish Eucharistic eelebration, In leter dated 22 July 2013, Fe, Gofigan responds to the archbishop refusing to resign as requested asserting among, other things that the reasons allege! by the srchbishop have no factal basis It was in view of the precipitate actions of the archbishop that Fr, Gofigan tnderstood himself to have been removed from his office as pastor—a perception that is difficult to avoid considering the aggressive steps that were taken by the archbishop. ‘Te was also the perception of the undersigned advocate for how ele ae those moves tobe understood. Therefore the appeal was lodged before che archbishop. However in «lever of the Viear General dated 2 Aug 2013, he clarifies that “since to dectec basin fact yet been issued removing you from the office as pastor of Santa ‘Barbara Cle dss is bass inlaw fo the proposal of a recourse by you at che present time” In effec, Father Paul has been removed but he has not been emoved, therefore he eannot appeal the removal. Gn 20 Avg 2013, te Atchbishop explains the steps that he has taken. “Relying on Jour statements of your refusal to obey, and your deste to leave the archdiocese and Recnuse Twas lexving the Island on July 19, 2013 for the World Youh Dar Pilgrimage in Beri, 1 could notin conscience leave Santa Barbara Parish vacant so fon July 17, 2013, T appointed a pacochitl administrator. 1 needed more time for discerament to appoint 4 pastor.” Inthe same letter, the atchbishop also refers to « Statement of Ft. Gofiga that “appeared tantamount to a verbal esignation.” Mernoroutas Trusunat oF Masa@ A. N. DACANAY, SJ. In a subsequent letter dated 30 Aug 2013, the Archbishop makes « distinction between reenoval from office and being relieved from of his duties as pastor. He has fot been eemoved, but he hasbeen zelieved of his duties as pastor. “The archishop informs Fe, Gofigan on 10 Sept 2013 that he is proceeding with the semoval process contemplated by the Code, (a) The advisory counel contemplated by C1721 was approved by the peesbytera council on 12 Aug and formally fatblished 13 Aug, (0) The archbishop sovghe the counsel of these two pastors [Amoyo and Alber () Some priest tested that the sexoffender was seen Cleaning some areas in the rectory; a priest was not sure ifthe person coneesned “fctaly bad keys to the parish faites in bis possession; thatthe same person when fone ofthe priests encountered him in the rectory emitted occasionally the smell of eobol, the logbook for the wine indicates thatthe same person had withdeawa wine from the depository; the record ofthe dealings berween the parish and a hardware Jndicate thatthe same petson (JL) did some errands for the parish (On 15 October, the avta was inspected by the Advocate of Fr. Paul Gofiges. 2. The Canonical 2,4 The archbishop alleges the following: 2A.A In his letter of 16 July 2013, che Archbishop asks for immediate resignation of Fr. Gofigue. 2.4.2 The reason for this demand is that Fr. Gofigan continued to allow an individual ‘with a publicly known sexcoffense record to work ia the Church, ignoring the tracning given by the atouney forthe azchlinrese and in defiance of the order siven by the Viear General, The archbishop tefers to the fist section of C1741. The iesson for the demand for his resignation is repeated in the press release of the ‘Archdiocese of 22 July, that be disobeyed a ditective from the Archbishop to terminate the employment of a petvon publiey known to have a sex ore recor 24.3 The archbishop refers to preliminary investigation and consultation that he has ‘undertaken before asking For Gofigan’s immediate resignation, 244 Regacding the prelininsty investigation, he Statement of the Archdiocese of 22 July 2019 clarifies that the Archbishop and the Viear General did speak diretly to Fr Gofigan in a meeting of 16 July AS HE WAS INFORMED OF THE DECISION. There was an investigation ofthe matter and Fr, Gofigan was informed ofthis this same meeting of 16 July Yororn Senor oF Tizowooy Mernoroutax Trigun oF Manu PO bow Ise, Manes “rtm, Manin Jian -0es0 Pe 26.5007 ‘rea! snASe05 aot@ A.N. Dacanay, SJ. 2S Acconting to the same press selease of 22 July 2013, the investignton carticd as acentd fhat the aforementioned person with sex offense in His record ae eres ave an active presence atthe parish asa voluntet, and that he has Paar facies on church grounds, ana that he continued to have an active role wer acc grounds in ferent was. The onigna alge infinron of Fr, Gofigan Coated the order to terminate the emplorment of the seroifenders ‘modified and broadened, 22 In response 10 the assertions of the Archbishop, Fr. Gofigan offers the following, 2.21 Revarding the reason for the demand for his resimation—tha he defied he aan fone Viear Genera o fire the sex-offender and that he continues © allow the see fender to work inthe parish, Fr. Gofigan asserts the following ‘The Vicar General orally ordered Fr, Gofigan to fire the sex offender in 2011, and Te Goppan complied promply, termitaing Mr. Lasimoza's services ir eter 0 ce ete Oct DOIL- So itis not tue that Pr. Gofigan defied the osder to wae cate ihe sexoffender. As a matter of fact, he complied promptly snd erupulously with the order to terminate. 12.2.2-The ground alleged for the demand forthe resignation of Fre Gefigan the “incpurd of diet order to teminat the employee with a sexfeasc 09 he ease such 1 preliminary investigation that the Archbishop claims was conducted Jeeae be Godgan was asked to tesign should have revealed thatthe direct order eee vcd out and complied with, So eer there was n0 investigation that was eae carne on if there was, it wis loppily and incomperently done, “+ could aot sruride a ground for one of the more serious moves aginst & pastor i good the decision ofthe Wahoo 10 reove a oaish oie rom office was wold by ihe Stara pst a Gevison Ste 8 dane 203 was upel otros Or ie ai pet cor ge. teSteatira was not convinced: seed the around alle! by ced re aot chalenged, sand the paso insined tat the grounds were ot 2 ined named his Hufal inst nthe case fF. Gofiean, he ses reg um cs pte and he has a docoment 0 prove ht das et xs. Repres Jn SCL 1 (2006) 275296 in a case resohod under the Cade of 1917, the Pontifical Commission for the terrain of at ced ato remove on fie & pastor who refises resign wpa tet 785 year, he dean bishop mt ftiow te procedure esablshed Ys completion (aun 1) 1 20 #1 He may not spy declare mmedinely that be no Field fice tre Apolo eds 70 (1978) p. $3, ARough te case of Fr. Goan longer bo oS jon ‘ot the, Perf! Comision underscores the imparance of the eer ran I's cl fom the docu tha the wee procul pst th ree ered zeray ofthe rept wel ste ust extent of Fr. Cotas Lavoie Seyoot oF Treouoer Mernorotstax Tauguras, oF MANIAA. N. Dacanay, SJ- 1223 Wrix sho arscnted that »consaltation with two parish priests appointed 4 223 Ti a ged by C1042 1, was cared out. Fe. Giga was not spe} sa aminonsihoogh thee opinion was recorded in » summary fon 1 the aa 2.24 As tothe press elease where the charge aginst Fe. Goin was broaden 22 ed linia tat he allowed the voluntary work of the sx offender the parish, the foDowing must be noted (4 Ocenionaly the terminated paih worker would vlunter ais" Ose would be accepted by other volunteers either to move tbles/ chai, te tetup eoom fran activity, of to clean up ater ac, (b) the aforementioned terminated pass wotker a his family ws a © pe ghten) are members ofthe pss who amend mass and oes Pais a eaeelady. Te woud aot be altogether sorpesing that be woot ae aly ou, aldbough its clea that he it mot formal rember of roy proche eoup of acy ie would e dificult, and anchsea, co at Fee tikes pash or an enna itondaa in the old Code (ee Gofigan concedes that be may bavealowe he person 19 hep Nt oe oem chore o sepait work Dut only for him personaly and ony oer a aly, cerns aot in the sense io which be is accused of a fos see ey peing removed as pastor—that e endangered the safety of te aaa nse the parah and the parochial school and chat he disobeyed she Sane vec of the ascashop e remove htm from dhe payroll of the avis (a) Gosigan asserts leary and insistent athe Keys ave never Been the possession of the person in question “the change ans Fe. Gofian as become a htc concep, A fis fs Secs Zh chats Wythe dec order to terminate the employment of Me. Latinos te oe aoe ved i,t nitated inc allowing him to do wouter work for Wereuath Whe the ese ot dente accuton agpnst posing Oe ae Pa from his office is somewhat analogs to the joiner of eves 9 8 Fer and the Code is very strict that sch a joindes, once determine coi aon under the most sgorors conditions. In this case, che aecuson oe ofthe removal was expanded from not terminating the employment. Slowing him to helping out inthe parish Loos Senna, oF Tusox0er Mernorournan ‘Pampa of Mana© A.N. DacanAy, SJ. 4 There were ls important poor lapses inthe manner the Arcishop ate! {L1-The procure for removal presupposes an inquiry wo weil che presen’ of 8 3 ns Pana to sy de femoral ofthe pastor hough the remows! OF 5 ret iin an amine process aber than penal C17” pow help ncn tne oninary o ange personal or tough anaes Po an ntsc, andthe enpuab,Fr ce fats xb 0 ee ach an ingiry reared by C7821. was cared oot Hed ese dob a aperenty, would have become lear ae evident thatthe pero SIE the employ of he parish as been terminated ewo yar Pr, the aac cr bemeal was eed out faihflly and tothe lets, not dei! or ignored a alleged 4.2 fee bishop is convinced that he must proceed with the moval of the pastor aaa expresses its preference for avoing contentions Baton, asi dos 8 sana 71, and 1733. The bishop stmply cannot deere the pastors removal or TMG iyi to peruade dhe ptr fo rig giving che panto 15 das 1 Oe aes (CI42, This cra sep in the procedure reared Dy canon lw was ignored altogether Fe Gofgn ass that a3 PM, 16 Jl the Archbishop. the presses of 8 Fe, Gobgan ose fo Ee, Gog, th leer of removal and then banded him he Vicar Gene emoratd by the Aechdiocesan pres lease of 2 Joly 2613 oli) tee Cosi was informed ofthis (he Binding afte nest) ct en the ltr of remoal (sequent modified int rae ‘iieation) eos handed 10 him, This is cetainy not the proce contemplated cera canon law nd when he got back hs psy he sail a OY though he were asecuny sk Ax he lments, there wat non Jatemal about the wy the Archbishop proceed 413 The Archbishop, during hit inal meesing wih Fe. Gfigan a which the V5" aon eevpreent, refers #9 a verbal statement by Fr Gofigan ds Tmt Gener Ceagation and te rsignation was ony from the office of pastor Put aac oliees mn te azioces; Ft. Gorgas wae om FERRITE NS om a ned (leave the arcocese for be never iazended be ondined ae ae eaves of the archdiocede. Regucing this, the folowing shoudl bs st Te pce rth roma pastoris sounded yi roel. is hed eet of ihe me the Bo ofthe atl wich al conieceees the det an prema 2 paso an eee remedy OE ss at Paso ar ake ahenever posible F-Coscopamarn, De caus a won st lice LXV (980) 27-302, Peal sae remoal o sea orgy ae tt ges ings een fly aed AS “hole ra ual laws ae seplasiyotered to nae sue tht sce ‘Ripping and the good ane ofthe pstor snot ried Lovo1a Sencar. oF THEOLOGY Merxorourtax Praua oF MANILAA. N. DacanAy, SJ. (a tows «rection in anger and disappointment and iti disusbing 1 Poke Gone Aschbahop and his Vicar General should have taken this outburst Fetace value, When a priests told abruptly and from out of nowhere that he iS fing removed om his office ax pastor, ane does nok expect acl, A pel and dapassionate seaction. In fact, the archbishop took this t= aac of volality, which is a extremely poot appreciation of human () When Fr. Gofign asked to be excarioated fiom the archdiocese, the hishop should ave known that the exeselination cannot take effect aa ene concerned is incarnated iato another local church 2s wehcmplacad by C267. ‘That the archbishop should fave acted on the setimpron that the clei is lvedy excardinaed seems 10 indie 18 sence eagerness to get i ofthe cleric sposton that i hardly paternal ‘or shepherthlike. (6) ‘The Archbishop refers to verial statement that # tantamount 10 8 Qreetion, for which reason he appeited «parochial administton, veel there is 2 certain degree of peevarication here. As observed wows His Crmce scene ro exhibit undue ast to se a eancnially yah rata here to us what seems to bean exceudingly eames dew to ana Golan. from his office as pastor. According to. C18, # ‘Rajusion most be made cher in wating oF only before ewo wien sertathedty competent to provide for the office in question, namely the ieSpbishop, His Grace sould have known thar the aeged verbal statement aaarmpedt to a resigaation isnot a valid resignation 1s there 1 Onky One vaainces eve if he shoukd be the Vicar General ashe isin this eas. 44 Io the letter of the Vint General cited above he clarifies that there is no leat aoe he spouse that Father Gofigan lodged before the Archbishop becatss be eee el er been removed On the one hand, Father Gofian is locked nt of te ‘eu seston, the lnk to the pas offices ae changed, pacha edinirs PriSigunted beens the Archbishop wants mote ime to dacem 1 appoint Pass 5 desta the offce of pastor has nor yet been vacated, and Father Polis removed see she tat of presides of the Euchadst in the pasish as though he were unde seepeaven Prey single one of which even taken sepaznelycanaor De comstve aa rerceway bt removal lt alone taken together. In effect the arrument is dat wae Gatgen has not yet been removed because he could not be moved following the prescriptions of canon hw, 445 This is « canonical procedure that has gone awry. In the process canonicy 38 Jair wese mangle provisions of the Code were ignored he steps eee the bungled process feeble, and in the meantime the rights of panos canned and his good name ruined. Even the consttation of the adtsony body orous Seuoat oF Tuxonncr MertorourTay Trigun or Mania@ A.N. DacanAy, SJ. required by CA7AD is very suspicious. The concerns ssed by the Archbishop Tolld have been accomplished even without the bungled atempt at removal, thecefore one realy wonders what isthe real purpose behind the move 4. Summary and Conclusion, Father Paul Gofgan therefore ask tht, pending the ‘Reoluton of this appeal, he be restored (0 his office as Pastor and his good name reputed. Rev. PAUL GOFIGAN AM DaceniyF Rev, A. N. DACANAY, S Advocate Nov a3 Yoyoua Scoot oF Tanowoor Memnorouman Taina oF Manta